Gamasutra is running a feature discussing the used game market with various developers and analysts. The point has been raised by many members of the industry that used game sales are hurting developers and publishers even more lately, when they're already beleaguered by rising piracy rates and a struggling economy. Atari executives recently commented that used game sales are "extremely painful," while GameStop's CEO unsurprisingly came out in support of resales. We've recently discussed a few of the ways game designers are considering to limitused game sales. David Braben, chairman of UK-based developer Frontier Development had this to say: "Five years ago, a great game would have sold for a longer period of time than for a bad game — which was essentially our incentive to make great games. But no longer. Now publishers and developers just see revenue the initial few weeks regardless of the game's quality and then gamers start buying used copies which generates money that goes into GameStop's pocket, nobody else's."
by Anonymous Coward
on Wednesday December 10 2008, @04:51AM (#26057267)
In other news, used car sales are hurting car manufacturers even more lately, when they're already beleaguered by rising petrol prices and a struggling economy. Ford executives recently commented that used car sales are "extremely painful," while eBay's CEO unsurprisingly came out in support of resales. David Braben, chairman of UK-based car manufacturer Frontier Development had this to say: "Five years ago, a great car would have sold for a longer period of time than for a bad car â" which was essentially our incentive to make great cars. But no longer. Now manufacturers just see revenue the initial few weeks regardless of the car's quality and then gamers start buying used cars which generates money that goes into eBay's pocket, nobody else's."
These developers, etc, are completely ignorant of economics to even think of making this claim.
The fact is that resale value in the mind of the buyer is a major portion of the original purchase price (whether he knows that consciously or not). If you make resale illegal or difficult enough to kill it off what will happen is that gamers will find the same approximately $60/game prices to be even less worth-it than before, since you've destroyed the intrinsic resale value the game had and there's now no way to dump a game that isn't worth keeping to recover a portion of your investment. If the resale value of a game is worth ~$20 then the entire game industry will have to lower their prices by that much on average to see the same buying activity, because a $60 game is now only worth about $40. But they aren't imagining they will have to do that. If the consumer thinks your game is overpriced they will not buy it. And making resale impossible will contribute to that perception.
The result of this will be even more conservative behavior when gamers shop for games. Meaning that only triple-A titles will do well, and the A-material games will have fewer buyers and the B-games will probably price themselves out of the market.
I'm sure Detroit's auto-industry and many other manufacturers would love to outlaw buying used cars to force you to buy new, but that's not how it works. That would only create a black-market for goods.
So, think about this a second time, developers and publishers. You got your cash up-front when you sold that game brand-new and part of the reason buyers paid your price is because of the intrinsic resale value, you have absolute zero claim to second hand sales and the existence and ability to sell game second hand actually results in buyers taking more chances on new games and therefore more people buying new games. In fact, if your game does well second hand it's usually because your game is doing well in any case among first buyers.
The answer isn't restricting 2nd hand sales. The answer is to get off your a$$es and make f***in' better games the people want to buy in the first place.
No, it would make sense if the depreciation of a used car was practically zero. That's obviously not the case.
The "problem" the industry sees with used game sales is that, given enough patience from the gamers, a very limited number of copies could conceivably be passed around the world LEGALLY for everyone to play in turn. Newer games end up on the used shelf in days, so not that much patience is needed.
The proper solution (as mentioned in other posts) would be to make games that take longer than a few days to get bored of. I'm still playing Civ4 regularly.
Sequels come out in the same way that new models of car come out.
Yet if a manufacturer tried to cripple their cars in such a way that they could only ever be used by one person and never sold on then you can bet people would get pissed of real fast.
The main depreciation of a used car isn't because newer and cooler cars come out (it only plays a small part), but actual mechanical wear.
Googling the phrase "drive off the lot" returned the factoid that "With a hybrid car, buyers do not always immediately lose that 30 percent of the value the minute they drive off the lot." People who aren't extolling the virtues of hybrids quote slightly lower numbers, some 10-15%, some 15-20%. Still, do you really think that there is that much mechanical wear associated with driving 500 feet?
Every car I've ever owned was purchased from the used-car department at a local dealer's. My current car was a year old and came with the remainder of the manufacturer's warranty. I saved a lot more than the percentage of its lifetime that had been "used up". My wife is a bit more paranoid, so her cars are purchased at year-end clearance sales. The savings aren't as large, but she gets a car with less than a hundred miles on the odometer.
Indeed. For grins, I fired up my copy of Frink [homeip.net] (very cool program, btw), and punched in the following:
10 dollars_1981 -> dollars
23.83
10 dollars_1972 -> dollars
51.81
Note that Frogger came out in 1981 and Pong in 1972, at least according to Wikipedia. For a perspective of what things cost in 1972, check out this link [bbhq.com]. Interesting to ponder.
When I buy a game, I play it and sometimes beat it the day I bought it.
Wouldn't you say that's more of a price-value disparity? You paid ~50$ for a game and only got one or two days of enjoyment out of it. That sounds like the game fails to deliver much for its price.
Also, if you beat the games that fast, shouldn't you try renting? That's about 1.50$ per day rather than 30$ per game.
and sadly that increased development cost rarely results in anything worth "more" than the previous gen of games.
Adding more graphics to a game at this point doesn't necessarily make it better, especially if the original game sorta sucked to begin with. Most FPS's and fighting games fall into this category. They're just white washed rehashed bits of the previous generation.
The price has remained the same, but remember that back in the days of yore a lot more cost of the game was involved in it's medium. The ROM chips (and sometimes additional processors, batteries, etc) used in cartridges way back when were orders of magnitude more expensive than the CD's and DVD's that games ship on now (which cost maybe $0.15 per disc to produce). So yes, development costs have gone up, but that's the only reason prices should remain the same. Without that games would logically cost half as much as they do now given the reduction in media cost.
In reality though, games, like all things, are worth exactly as much as people are willing to pay for them. That was, and still is, $50-60. What the publishers don't realize though is that the price that people are willing to pay for an item often has resale value factored in. If I can resell a game for $20-25 dollars after a week, then I might be willing to pay $60 for it. If that option wasn't available, my threshold for the initial purchase might be a lot less.
The price has remained the same, but remember that back in the days of yore a lot more cost of the game was involved in it's medium. The ROM chips (and sometimes additional processors, batteries, etc) used in cartridges way back when were orders of magnitude more expensive than the CD's and DVD's that games ship on now (which cost maybe $0.15 per disc to produce). So yes, development costs have gone up, but that's the only reason prices should remain the same. Without that games would logically cost half as much as they do now given the reduction in media cost.
$50-60 today is not the same as $50-60 in 1985. Adjusted for inflation, game prices are decreasing while production costs are increasing...
Yeah, I hate that argument too - it annoyed the crap out of me when the oil companies used it to defend rising gas prices. Nonetheless, there is some truth to it.
Except I remember most orignial NES, Atari, etc. games starting out at $39.95. some where $49.95 but very few were more than that, as in I can only think of one that was $59.95.
I really can't see how game prices are too high or even much higher than a few years ago.
The content of most games today (being it story or quests like in Fallout 3 or graphics / models / textures like in... well, almost all of them) aren't even comparable to the older classics.
Since i'm currently playing it, i'll stick with Fallout 3 compared to its predecessors as an example.
Quest-wise, they may have the same amount of content, i guess 1 and 2 even a bit more in the writing department.
That is certainly not what the article says. It basically mentions that while a repair shop has your car, they're going to do an inspection on possibly accident-unrelated things. In the USA we call that a state-inspection. We're subject to this yearly.
After all, if it goes under, we'll get a lot of people, who spend hours gaming, not gaming anymore. This means less soda and junk food to snack on, which in turn, means the junk food industry will be hurt, which, in turn, means more layoffs.
I'm frequently amazed the games industry doesn't just stand up one day and go "Y'know, we talked it out between us, and we've had enough. We're going to all get jobs with fewer hours and better pay in something dull like spreadsheet programming."
So far, all I'm seeing is that their business model makes neither side happy. Game developers, at least starting out, get insane hours for little pay. Games are released at price points that are uncomfortably expensive for most of the target audience. That sounds like a disaster waiting to happen, to me.
So far, all I'm seeing is that their business model makes neither side happy. Game developers, at least starting out, get insane hours for little pay. Games are released at price points that are uncomfortably expensive for most of the target audience. That sounds like a disaster waiting to happen, to me.
You forgot the third side, who is quite content: The suits:
pay the developers next to nothing.
gorge themselves on the gamers' money
Greenlight any derivative crap that comes down the pipe as long as it's close enough to an extant blockbuster
Unfortunately, that group is the one with all the money, and as such, all the say.
1. Do something that's normally profitable when you're not a complete tool. (has to be filled in to match the agenda at hand) 2. Do something that's absolutely moronic and makes people go "duh". (see above) 3. Ask for tax money to compensate for your own stupidity. (stays like this, that's the new meme actually) 4. Profit! (obvious).
Between you, and a game publisher, I think I know whose numbers on sales I'm more likely to believe.
You may not buy crappy games, because you read reviews first, but I think the message here is fairly clearly that there's enough people who buy games based purely on refractive index of the box cover, to make even the worst movie tie-in sell.
You may not buy crappy games, because you read reviews first
You do realize what a farce the major game reviewers have become, don't you? As in - if a publisher doesn't pay for a nice, lavish "reviewing" trip, they're not gonna get good reviews. There are depressingly few exceptions to this among the reviewers that people listen to.
If it makes them feel any better...I have never bought or sold a used game. As a matter of fact, the vast majority of my purchases in the past year have been digital. That does come at the cost that I only buy good games from companies that treat me properly.
Beyond that..of course it effects prices. That being said, you can't do anything about it. Once purchased, the game is mine to sell. The best (for them, that is) thing to do is to abandon singleplayer and focus on subscription and account based games.
that the used game market is affecting price and quality, my first response is GREAT! Market forces at work are driving new game prices down and quality up as developers are forced to compete with a robust substitute good: the used game.
Then I realize its more of the same FUD campaign put on by the mega-corporations to prep us for invasive mechanisms inserted into games with the end goal of bilking us for more $$$. I think I'll avoid supporting this industry and stick to indie games until they have an attitude shift.
...yes yes, its all ther nasty consumers fault! You bundle crapware drm and we don't buy it, uhuh, thats my fault. You release the game for £50-60 quid, and somehow, especially in the current economic crisis, I find that I'd rather pay for food and shelter over GENERICFIFASPORTGAME-2009. Im even more evil for thinking that second hand at £20-30, I might just be able to afford it without sending you more money after its first sale.
Oh, I also apologize when i decide not to buy your £50 game, because you decided you could, infact, split it into 3 seperate games and sell it that way for more than £100, for pure greed (Hi Starcraft2!). Im so very sorry. Also, do forgive me when i refuse to buy your game at all, because you decided that buying the game second hand means im njot entitled to the full game, because I also decided you weren't worthy to survive as a games company anymore (GOW2).
And "Five years ago, a great game would have sold for a longer period of time than for a bad game-- which was essentially our incentive to make great games. But no longer. Now publishers and developers just see revenue the initial few weeks regardless of the game's quality and then gamers start buying used copies which generates money that goes into GameStop's pocket, nobody else's."
No Im sorry, games just aren't as good as they were, because I recall buying and trading in games for second hand games more than 5 years ago. So that hasn't changed, must be the games eh?
Games with replay value don't get sold, gamers want to keep them to play again later. With no second hand copies available, people will have to buy new.
Games that are good enough get relaunched at half price as Platinum Games, which will see another boost in revenue as 20 quid is a price point where most gamers are prepared to buy new.
Games that have a long completion time - eg 30+ hours, or excellent online gameplay, result in gamers keeping them for quite some time before being sold back to game stores, which keeps that initial sales stream lasting longer than normal.
Games that have a short single player experience, or turn out to be not as good as the paid for review claimed, get sold back to the store as quickly as possible, and the publisher's revenue stream dies.
Gamers sell games to buy more games, they know you always get a better store credit price than cash price.
Gamers who buy second hand games, can't afford to drop 50-60 notes on the latest games. If these poorer gamers weren't keeping the second hand market strong, the price the richer gamers would be getting when they sell their games, would drop. This would mean they'd have less money to buy new titles.
50 - 60 notes is a lot of money to most people, even those that can afford it, can only justify it, because the game retains value and some of the cost can be reclaimed by selling it.
The market is working correctly, and any attempt to try and grab more market share by the publishers will back fire.
I have a large collection of games that I'm never selling. I love them and periodically replay them, just like favorite movies. Baldur's gate 2 would be one. Ya it's an old game but I still like it. I replay it maybe once a year or every other year. I probably will for a long time too. You could compare it to the Princess Bride. Ya I saw that movie when I was 10. Guess what? I own the DVD. I like it. I don't watch it every day or anything but I watch it now and again. I'm not selling either game or DVD beca
I find it rather strange that numerous $randomSlashDotPosters can figure this out and that almost none of the game companies can.
Don't they hire, like, market dudes or something ? Or are we specially gifted around here ?
What's wrong with all those companies that keep on acting like divas all the time... "waaah, I've been obnoxious and painted myself in a corner, it's all the fault of my nasty customers, of p2p, of unmetered access, of sunspots, of the falling market, of terrorism..."
Yes, they hire marketing guys. Who do you think came up with the idea that used game sales are terrible and hurting the industry? If they can convince consumers that buying used games hurts the game companies, that its unfair to the game companies, and that they should accept methods of strong-arming them into buying new for the "good of the industry," then they will, because that will make their companies more profitable. What you are reading from these companies IS marketing, make no mistake. Its just
the technology that we use to play these games has improved greatly over the past 5 years. so why aren't the games that are played on this hardware getting any better?
rather than bitch about how no one is buying your new games, start making good games that get me excited, so I want to go and buy them right away.
when you make a game that most likely sucks, i can't return, and infects my computer with another one of your DRM viruses, im not going to get all excited about it.
i still play red alert 2, unreal trournament, doom, a link to the past, etc, because those are great games that i enjoy playing.
start making games that are fun, and i will start buying. Or, you can recycle the crappy games from last year, throw in a few more polygons to make things pretty and go out of business.
* The high price of game creates the 2nd hand market.
* The high price 2nd hand market helps people afford new games, by selling their old games.
Putting up the price of new games isn't going to change those facts, in fact it will raise the price of 2nd hand games making the market more lucrative and increasing the amount of trade in 2nd hand games.
Preventing games from being sold 2nd hand will reduce what buyers can afford for new games.
Folk only have so much money to spend on games, after all!
I used to regularly spend about 1 GBP ($2) a week at charity shops buying books at 10-20 pence each. (They'd go back to charity shops to be re-sold when I'd finished with them)
Then the shops went "up market" and started selling at 50p - 1 pound each and now they don't get any of my money at all.
Exactly what I was thinking. If these games were so "great" as they assume, people would want to keep them for longer periods of time due to their replay value.
These "great games" that they speak so highly of, are usually nothing but sequels to games, where the ideas were already done. They're not really that original and maybe just add one or two new features. The annual sports games come to mind. Most people won't keep those forever. A lot of people trade them in pretty fast when they've realized it's jus
"That's in addition to the fact that we don't see anything from the used-game sales, which is one reason why the price of new games throughout the industry remains artificially high," he says. "I mean, the industry has to make all its money from the first sale since we don't get a penny from the subsequent dozen or so sales of that same game."
Competition drives prices up!? Don't treat us like morons. If used sales went down why would they reduce the price? To make less money? I can see that being a great business strategy.
Why are resales so popular in the first place? Because games are really expensive and have a short life.
I'd also like to point out that while the observation that 80% of money from trade ins is spent on games is interesting, the car resale analogy is a little misleading. Cars are assets. They're purchased with the expectation of a certain level of depreciation. Games are to an extent but it's not nearly as big a factor in the purchase.
It's exactly the same BS the various recording industry associations are trying to feed us. They want to be liberated from the shackles of the free market, so that the extremely elastic demand and highly competitive market for games (music, movies) is turned into an inelastic demand government-sanctioned oligolopy.
To which I'd say "buzz off and go into a different business if you don't like it.". Note: I am a musician and a software developer. I still don't think the market should be controlled.
Books, CDs, movies... these are all forms of entertainment that lose a lot of their value once they've been viewed once. If game companies don't want people reselling games, they need to make some kind of incentive for people to hold onto their games, and make the gameplay actually enjoyable so that people keep the game to enjoy, rather than just to finish the single-player content once. Great examples of this are the Smash Bros. series and the Halo series. Both are enjoyable to play with friends (or online) after you've finished the single-player campaign. Things like XBox achievements do a lot to add replayability to games, but if the games aren't inherently fun, then even they can't save a game.
This is just plain fud. Being able to sell a game once you've played it increases the reason to buy it. Especially when the game is short, possibly bad or has no replayability value.
by Anonymous Coward
on Wednesday December 10 2008, @05:25AM (#26057461)
The used market helps sell new games.
Some subset of early-adopter gamers are not going to buy new games at brand new prices unless they know they can turn around and sell the game to get back some of that value. This is especially true since early-adopter gamers are the ones taking the risk on the games. In this capacity, the used market actually helps you.
The used market is not the money factory you claim.
If there was truly so much money to be had in the used market you would drop your prices without hesitation in order to compete. If there was that much money you should have no problem making up for lowered prices with increased sales. The fact that you do not do this illustrates very clearly that there is not that much money being 'lost'.
David Braben, you are a remarkable idiot.
Not only have you stated that money is your "essential" motivation for creating great games - which leads me to wonder if your firm is capable of making a great game - but you have made it very clear that your firm has no incentive (read: plan) to create great games in the future.
Used games exist so deal with it. There are a lot of things that would affect how many people bought your games. If used games were outlawed then more people might buy games. If computers had hardware DRM that prevented any game from being played unless it phoned home to the game manufacturer, people might buy more games. If the government mandated that people buy at least 2 games a week, people would buy more games. That's not the world we're living in, so I guess the games industry has to do what everyone else has to do and cater to their existing customers. They're not entitled to protection for their business plans, and them saying that it's used games that's causing decrease in quality and affecting price is bullshit. When the demand for new games drops because there are used games, the rules of the market dictate that the companies have to LOWER their prices to compensate. Not raise them. People aren't buying them already! Why would they buy them at a higher cost? And, in turn, if the market forces you to lower your price, then you have to spend less making games. This doesn't necessarily dictate a decrease in quality. Look at World of Goo, Penny Arcade Adventures, Enigmo, Field Runners, Castle Crashers or Braid. Those games are dirt cheap to make, and are fun and original. This means that there might not be a Gears of War 3 or a Call of Duty 5, but you could make 10 Portals for the price of 1 Gears of War. I've been playing more games than ever before, and they haven't been AAA titles. They've been $20 games that I buy off XBox Live Arcade or the iPhone App Store, or from indie developers. I also bought The Force Unleashed, a highly anticipated AAA title, and it's been sitting on my shelf collecting dust. From my perspective it's never been better to be a gamer. There are so many choices for distribution and the barrier to entry has never been lower so there are a lot of inexpensive, entertaining games out. That's the biggest danger to the mainstream game market. And next time I think about putting up $60 for a supposed AAA title, I'll hold out a week and get it used.
the movie industry saying the same thing about rental shops when they first came out. They ended up dropping the price of videotapes (Yes, I'm old. Deal.) from $50 to $19.95. They don't seem to complain about that any more. Maybe if the game companies dropped the prices to begin with, more people would buy them when they first come out.
If you want me to buy "Megagame 2" but don't want me to sell my copy of "Megagame 1" in case it creates competition for your Megagame 2 sales, then offer me a voucher for my copy of Megagame 1 (you only need to match or slightly better the price places like Gamestop would pay me). Said voucher to to be used when purchasing Megagame 2 )or another of your product line).
Then when you have my copy of Megagame 1, you can destroy it so it never threatens your future sales again.
If you want me to buy "Megagame 2" but don't want me to sell my copy of "Megagame 1" in case it creates competition for your Megagame 2 sales, then offer me a voucher for my copy of Megagame 1 (you only need to match or slightly better the price places like Gamestop would pay me). Said voucher to to be used when purchasing Megagame 2 )or another of your product line).
Then when you have my copy of Megagame 1, you can destroy it so it never threatens your future sales again.
This was actually done by Epic, during that period of time before they started assfucking PC gamers for fun and profit.
If you bought UT 2003, and wanted UT2004 (which basically included all of the content of UT 2003, in what can only be described as a bargainous adventure into consumer value) you could send them back your 'Play' disc from UT2003 and get a rebate on UT2004. I think it was about 10 bucks, but it was still a nice thing to do!
first, I've been playing PC games for over 2 decades.
Quality has dropped drastically. Technology increased which gave the illusion of high quality. Games today are a horrendous value compared to just ten years ago. Content has dropped from an observed average of 25 hours of gameplay to around 6 hours. Half the budget is blown by publishers on marketing. Publishers have also gotten quite complacent about their position in the industry. When you have more than 3 sequels, it's easy to forget about innovation.
Since games are so short these days, people go through them faster. Thus they go to the retailers what sell used games.
Just keep in mind, regardless of all the doom and gloom reports, the Games industry is still posting new record profits year on year, so it's obviously not that big a problem.
What they really mean is they want to make even more profit and rather than produce games that are of better quality and/or appeal to wider audiences they want to keep shifting the same old crap but make more from it.
Make no mistake, the whole Spore DRM debacle had nothing to do with piracy and everything to do with preventing second hand sales. The games industry has set it's sights on the second hand market as a way to increase profits without increasing effort, I do not think it will win, but accept consumers to have to listen to whines from the industry and take it from behind on DRM and stuff for a little while yet.
Boo f*cking hoo (Score:5, Insightful)
In other news, used car sales are hurting car manufacturers even more lately, when they're already beleaguered by rising petrol prices and a struggling economy. Ford executives recently commented that used car sales are "extremely painful," while eBay's CEO unsurprisingly came out in support of resales. David Braben, chairman of UK-based car manufacturer Frontier Development had this to say: "Five years ago, a great car would have sold for a longer period of time than for a bad car â" which was essentially our incentive to make great cars. But no longer. Now manufacturers just see revenue the initial few weeks regardless of the car's quality and then gamers start buying used cars which generates money that goes into eBay's pocket, nobody else's."
Re:Boo f*cking hoo (Score:4, Insightful)
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Gamers buy cars?
If playing games ever taught you anything... (Score:4, Funny)
If playing games ever taught you anything, it should be that cars are something you steal.
Parent
Re:Boo f*cking hoo (Score:5, Insightful)
The "problem" the industry sees with used game sales is that, given enough patience from the gamers, a very limited number of copies could conceivably be passed around the world LEGALLY for everyone to play in turn. Newer games end up on the used shelf in days, so not that much patience is needed.
The proper solution (as mentioned in other posts) would be to make games that take longer than a few days to get bored of. I'm still playing Civ4 regularly.
Parent
Re:Boo f*cking hoo (Score:4, Insightful)
Discs get damaged.
Sequels come out in the same way that new models of car come out.
Yet if a manufacturer tried to cripple their cars in such a way that they could only ever be used by one person and never sold on then you can bet people would get pissed of real fast.
Parent
Re:Boo f*cking hoo (Score:4, Insightful)
The main depreciation of a used car isn't because newer and cooler cars come out (it only plays a small part), but actual mechanical wear.
Googling the phrase "drive off the lot" returned the factoid that "With a hybrid car, buyers do not always immediately lose that 30 percent of the value the minute they drive off the lot." People who aren't extolling the virtues of hybrids quote slightly lower numbers, some 10-15%, some 15-20%. Still, do you really think that there is that much mechanical wear associated with driving 500 feet?
Every car I've ever owned was purchased from the used-car department at a local dealer's. My current car was a year old and came with the remainder of the manufacturer's warranty. I saved a lot more than the percentage of its lifetime that had been "used up". My wife is a bit more paranoid, so her cars are purchased at year-end clearance sales. The savings aren't as large, but she gets a car with less than a hundred miles on the odometer.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I consider the depreciation value of a game quite high actually.
How many would pay $49 for a copy of Crysis today? how about the same for Prey? Quake? DOOM? Frogger? Pong?
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
10 dollars_1981 -> dollars
23.83
10 dollars_1972 -> dollars
51.81
Note that Frogger came out in 1981 and Pong in 1972, at least according to Wikipedia. For a perspective of what things cost in 1972, check out this link [bbhq.com]. Interesting to ponder.
Re:Boo f*cking hoo (Score:5, Insightful)
When I buy a game, I play it and sometimes beat it the day I bought it.
Wouldn't you say that's more of a price-value disparity? You paid ~50$ for a game and only got one or two days of enjoyment out of it. That sounds like the game fails to deliver much for its price.
Also, if you beat the games that fast, shouldn't you try renting? That's about 1.50$ per day rather than 30$ per game.
Parent
Re:Boo f*cking hoo (Score:4, Insightful)
and sadly that increased development cost rarely results in anything worth "more" than the previous gen of games.
Adding more graphics to a game at this point doesn't necessarily make it better, especially if the original game sorta sucked to begin with. Most FPS's and fighting games fall into this category. They're just white washed rehashed bits of the previous generation.
Parent
Re:Boo f*cking hoo (Score:5, Insightful)
The price has remained the same, but remember that back in the days of yore a lot more cost of the game was involved in it's medium. The ROM chips (and sometimes additional processors, batteries, etc) used in cartridges way back when were orders of magnitude more expensive than the CD's and DVD's that games ship on now (which cost maybe $0.15 per disc to produce). So yes, development costs have gone up, but that's the only reason prices should remain the same. Without that games would logically cost half as much as they do now given the reduction in media cost.
In reality though, games, like all things, are worth exactly as much as people are willing to pay for them. That was, and still is, $50-60. What the publishers don't realize though is that the price that people are willing to pay for an item often has resale value factored in. If I can resell a game for $20-25 dollars after a week, then I might be willing to pay $60 for it. If that option wasn't available, my threshold for the initial purchase might be a lot less.
Parent
Re:Boo f*cking hoo (Score:5, Interesting)
The price has remained the same, but remember that back in the days of yore a lot more cost of the game was involved in it's medium. The ROM chips (and sometimes additional processors, batteries, etc) used in cartridges way back when were orders of magnitude more expensive than the CD's and DVD's that games ship on now (which cost maybe $0.15 per disc to produce). So yes, development costs have gone up, but that's the only reason prices should remain the same. Without that games would logically cost half as much as they do now given the reduction in media cost.
$50-60 today is not the same as $50-60 in 1985. Adjusted for inflation, game prices are decreasing while production costs are increasing...
Yeah, I hate that argument too - it annoyed the crap out of me when the oil companies used it to defend rising gas prices. Nonetheless, there is some truth to it.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Except I remember most orignial NES, Atari, etc. games starting out at $39.95. some where $49.95 but very few were more than that, as in I can only think of one that was $59.95.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I really can't see how game prices are too high or even much higher than a few years ago.
The content of most games today (being it story or quests like in Fallout 3 or graphics / models / textures like in... well, almost all of them) aren't even comparable to the older classics.
Since i'm currently playing it, i'll stick with Fallout 3 compared to its predecessors as an example.
Quest-wise, they may have the same amount of content, i guess 1 and 2 even a bit more in the writing department.
- In Fallout 3, eve
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Does this mean? (Score:5, Interesting)
We should bail out the game industry?
After all, if it goes under, we'll get a lot of people, who spend hours gaming, not gaming anymore. This means less soda and junk food to snack on, which in turn, means the junk food industry will be hurt, which, in turn, means more layoffs.
Re:Does this mean? (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm frequently amazed the games industry doesn't just stand up one day and go "Y'know, we talked it out between us, and we've had enough. We're going to all get jobs with fewer hours and better pay in something dull like spreadsheet programming."
So far, all I'm seeing is that their business model makes neither side happy. Game developers, at least starting out, get insane hours for little pay. Games are released at price points that are uncomfortably expensive for most of the target audience. That sounds like a disaster waiting to happen, to me.
Parent
Re:Does this mean? (Score:5, Insightful)
So far, all I'm seeing is that their business model makes neither side happy. Game developers, at least starting out, get insane hours for little pay. Games are released at price points that are uncomfortably expensive for most of the target audience. That sounds like a disaster waiting to happen, to me.
You forgot the third side, who is quite content:
The suits:
Unfortunately, that group is the one with all the money, and as such, all the say.
Parent
Re:Does this mean? (Score:5, Informative)
The new American businessmodel :
1. start a business
2. "almost" go bankrupt
3. get your income from tax dollars instead of, you know, those horrible clients
4. profit !
Parent
Re:Does this mean? (Score:5, Funny)
Oh... My... God... you've solved the next to last step! YOU ARE A GENIUS!
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
The new meme is simply exactly this:
1. Do something that's normally profitable when you're not a complete tool. (has to be filled in to match the agenda at hand)
2. Do something that's absolutely moronic and makes people go "duh". (see above)
3. Ask for tax money to compensate for your own stupidity. (stays like this, that's the new meme actually)
4. Profit! (obvious).
Newsflash (Score:4, Interesting)
Rubbish games don't sell the first time arround.
Re:Newsflash (Score:5, Insightful)
Between you, and a game publisher, I think I know whose numbers on sales I'm more likely to believe.
You may not buy crappy games, because you read reviews first, but I think the message here is fairly clearly that there's enough people who buy games based purely on refractive index of the box cover, to make even the worst movie tie-in sell.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
You may not buy crappy games, because you read reviews first
You do realize what a farce the major game reviewers have become, don't you? As in - if a publisher doesn't pay for a nice, lavish "reviewing" trip, they're not gonna get good reviews. There are depressingly few exceptions to this among the reviewers that people listen to.
Hmm.. (Score:4, Insightful)
If making a game is always resulting in a loss, it wouldn't make any sense ( business or otherwise ) to continue making games.
Therefore, I can only conclude that making a game is *still* profitable ( despite everything ) and would just like to say:
Be happy you are making profit and stop whining about how much.
That goes for **AA too!
Well... (Score:2, Interesting)
Beyond that..of course it effects prices. That being said, you can't do anything about it. Once purchased, the game is mine to sell. The best (for them, that is) thing to do is to abandon singleplayer and focus on subscription and account based games.
Greed (Score:2)
When I read... (Score:5, Insightful)
that the used game market is affecting price and quality, my first response is GREAT! Market forces at work are driving new game prices down and quality up as developers are forced to compete with a robust substitute good: the used game.
Then I realize its more of the same FUD campaign put on by the mega-corporations to prep us for invasive mechanisms inserted into games with the end goal of bilking us for more $$$. I think I'll avoid supporting this industry and stick to indie games until they have an attitude shift.
Uhuh... (Score:5, Insightful)
...yes yes, its all ther nasty consumers fault! You bundle crapware drm and we don't buy it, uhuh, thats my fault. You release the game for £50-60 quid, and somehow, especially in the current economic crisis, I find that I'd rather pay for food and shelter over GENERICFIFASPORTGAME-2009. Im even more evil for thinking that second hand at £20-30, I might just be able to afford it without sending you more money after its first sale.
Oh, I also apologize when i decide not to buy your £50 game, because you decided you could, infact, split it into 3 seperate games and sell it that way for more than £100, for pure greed (Hi Starcraft2!). Im so very sorry. Also, do forgive me when i refuse to buy your game at all, because you decided that buying the game second hand means im njot entitled to the full game, because I also decided you weren't worthy to survive as a games company anymore (GOW2).
And "Five years ago, a great game would have sold for a longer period of time than for a bad game-- which was essentially our incentive to make great games. But no longer. Now publishers and developers just see revenue the initial few weeks regardless of the game's quality and then gamers start buying used copies which generates money that goes into GameStop's pocket, nobody else's."
No Im sorry, games just aren't as good as they were, because I recall buying and trading in games for second hand games more than 5 years ago. So that hasn't changed, must be the games eh?
Re:Uhuh... (Score:5, Insightful)
Games with replay value don't get sold, gamers want to keep them to play again later. With no second hand copies available, people will have to buy new.
Games that are good enough get relaunched at half price as Platinum Games, which will see another boost in revenue as 20 quid is a price point where most gamers are prepared to buy new.
Games that have a long completion time - eg 30+ hours, or excellent online gameplay, result in gamers keeping them for quite some time before being sold back to game stores, which keeps that initial sales stream lasting longer than normal.
Games that have a short single player experience, or turn out to be not as good as the paid for review claimed, get sold back to the store as quickly as possible, and the publisher's revenue stream dies.
Gamers sell games to buy more games, they know you always get a better store credit price than cash price.
Gamers who buy second hand games, can't afford to drop 50-60 notes on the latest games. If these poorer gamers weren't keeping the second hand market strong, the price the richer gamers would be getting when they sell their games, would drop. This would mean they'd have less money to buy new titles.
50 - 60 notes is a lot of money to most people, even those that can afford it, can only justify it, because the game retains value and some of the cost can be reclaimed by selling it.
The market is working correctly, and any attempt to try and grab more market share by the publishers will back fire.
Parent
Yep (Score:3, Insightful)
I have a large collection of games that I'm never selling. I love them and periodically replay them, just like favorite movies. Baldur's gate 2 would be one. Ya it's an old game but I still like it. I replay it maybe once a year or every other year. I probably will for a long time too. You could compare it to the Princess Bride. Ya I saw that movie when I was 10. Guess what? I own the DVD. I like it. I don't watch it every day or anything but I watch it now and again. I'm not selling either game or DVD beca
Re:Uhuh... (Score:5, Interesting)
I find it rather strange that numerous $randomSlashDotPosters can figure this out and that almost none of the game companies can.
Don't they hire, like, market dudes or something ? Or are we specially gifted around here ?
What's wrong with all those companies that keep on acting like divas all the time... "waaah, I've been obnoxious and painted myself in a corner, it's all the fault of my nasty customers, of p2p, of unmetered access, of sunspots, of the falling market, of terrorism..."
[/rant]
Parent
Re:Uhuh... (Score:4, Funny)
Or are we specially gifted around here?
Around here I think we're just special ;)
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Yes, they hire marketing guys. Who do you think came up with the idea that used game sales are terrible and hurting the industry? If they can convince consumers that buying used games hurts the game companies, that its unfair to the game companies, and that they should accept methods of strong-arming them into buying new for the "good of the industry," then they will, because that will make their companies more profitable. What you are reading from these companies IS marketing, make no mistake. Its just
here's an idea (Score:3, Insightful)
the technology that we use to play these games has improved greatly over the past 5 years. so why aren't the games that are played on this hardware getting any better?
rather than bitch about how no one is buying your new games, start making good games that get me excited, so I want to go and buy them right away.
when you make a game that most likely sucks, i can't return, and infects my computer with another one of your DRM viruses, im not going to get all excited about it.
i still play red alert 2, unreal trournament, doom, a link to the past, etc, because those are great games that i enjoy playing.
start making games that are fun, and i will start buying. Or, you can recycle the crappy games from last year, throw in a few more polygons to make things pretty and go out of business.
works both ways (Score:5, Insightful)
Two facts:
* The high price of game creates the 2nd hand market.
* The high price 2nd hand market helps people afford new games, by selling their old games.
Putting up the price of new games isn't going to change those facts, in fact it will raise the price of 2nd hand games making the market more lucrative and increasing the amount of trade in 2nd hand games.
Preventing games from being sold 2nd hand will reduce what buyers can afford for new games.
Folk only have so much money to spend on games, after all!
I used to regularly spend about 1 GBP ($2) a week at charity shops buying books at 10-20 pence each. (They'd go back to charity shops to be re-sold when I'd finished with them)
Then the shops went "up market" and started selling at 50p - 1 pound each and now they don't get any of my money at all.
Games industry is going the same way.
Sam
Make a game that people want to keep (Score:3, Insightful)
and you won't have this problem affecting your revenue stream.
I think one should be asking what makes people want to trade in a game after just one week of ownership.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Exactly what I was thinking. If these games were so "great" as they assume, people would want to keep them for longer periods of time due to their replay value.
These "great games" that they speak so highly of, are usually nothing but sequels to games, where the ideas were already done. They're not really that original and maybe just add one or two new features. The annual sports games come to mind. Most people won't keep those forever. A lot of people trade them in pretty fast when they've realized it's jus
Marketing lies (Score:3, Informative)
Competition drives prices up!? Don't treat us like morons. If used sales went down why would they reduce the price? To make less money? I can see that being a great business strategy.
Why are resales so popular in the first place? Because games are really expensive and have a short life.
I'd also like to point out that while the observation that 80% of money from trade ins is spent on games is interesting, the car resale analogy is a little misleading. Cars are assets. They're purchased with the expectation of a certain level of depreciation. Games are to an extent but it's not nearly as big a factor in the purchase.
Re:Marketing lies (Score:5, Insightful)
To which I'd say "buzz off and go into a different business if you don't like it.". Note: I am a musician and a software developer. I still don't think the market should be controlled.
Parent
How is this different than any other media? (Score:4, Interesting)
Books, CDs, movies... these are all forms of entertainment that lose a lot of their value once they've been viewed once. If game companies don't want people reselling games, they need to make some kind of incentive for people to hold onto their games, and make the gameplay actually enjoyable so that people keep the game to enjoy, rather than just to finish the single-player content once. Great examples of this are the Smash Bros. series and the Halo series. Both are enjoyable to play with friends (or online) after you've finished the single-player campaign. Things like XBox achievements do a lot to add replayability to games, but if the games aren't inherently fun, then even they can't save a game.
A load of bollocks (Score:5, Insightful)
What a load. (Score:5, Insightful)
The used market helps sell new games.
Some subset of early-adopter gamers are not going to buy new games at brand new prices unless they know they can turn around and sell the game to get back some of that value. This is especially true since early-adopter gamers are the ones taking the risk on the games. In this capacity, the used market actually helps you.
The used market is not the money factory you claim.
If there was truly so much money to be had in the used market you would drop your prices without hesitation in order to compete. If there was that much money you should have no problem making up for lowered prices with increased sales. The fact that you do not do this illustrates very clearly that there is not that much money being 'lost'.
David Braben, you are a remarkable idiot.
Not only have you stated that money is your "essential" motivation for creating great games - which leads me to wonder if your firm is capable of making a great game - but you have made it very clear that your firm has no incentive (read: plan) to create great games in the future.
yeah, but used games exist... (Score:3)
Used games exist so deal with it. There are a lot of things that would affect how many people bought your games. If used games were outlawed then more people might buy games. If computers had hardware DRM that prevented any game from being played unless it phoned home to the game manufacturer, people might buy more games. If the government mandated that people buy at least 2 games a week, people would buy more games. That's not the world we're living in, so I guess the games industry has to do what everyone else has to do and cater to their existing customers. They're not entitled to protection for their business plans, and them saying that it's used games that's causing decrease in quality and affecting price is bullshit. When the demand for new games drops because there are used games, the rules of the market dictate that the companies have to LOWER their prices to compensate. Not raise them. People aren't buying them already! Why would they buy them at a higher cost? And, in turn, if the market forces you to lower your price, then you have to spend less making games. This doesn't necessarily dictate a decrease in quality. Look at World of Goo, Penny Arcade Adventures, Enigmo, Field Runners, Castle Crashers or Braid. Those games are dirt cheap to make, and are fun and original. This means that there might not be a Gears of War 3 or a Call of Duty 5, but you could make 10 Portals for the price of 1 Gears of War. I've been playing more games than ever before, and they haven't been AAA titles. They've been $20 games that I buy off XBox Live Arcade or the iPhone App Store, or from indie developers. I also bought The Force Unleashed, a highly anticipated AAA title, and it's been sitting on my shelf collecting dust. From my perspective it's never been better to be a gamer. There are so many choices for distribution and the barrier to entry has never been lower so there are a lot of inexpensive, entertaining games out. That's the biggest danger to the mainstream game market. And next time I think about putting up $60 for a supposed AAA title, I'll hold out a week and get it used.
I seem to remember (Score:4, Interesting)
the movie industry saying the same thing about rental shops when they first came out. They ended up dropping the price of videotapes (Yes, I'm old. Deal.) from $50 to $19.95. They don't seem to complain about that any more. Maybe if the game companies dropped the prices to begin with, more people would buy them when they first come out.
Destroy the competition (Score:4, Insightful)
If you want me to buy "Megagame 2" but don't want me to sell my copy of "Megagame 1" in case it creates competition for your Megagame 2 sales, then offer me a voucher for my copy of Megagame 1 (you only need to match or slightly better the price places like Gamestop would pay me). Said voucher to to be used when purchasing Megagame 2 )or another of your product line).
Then when you have my copy of Megagame 1, you can destroy it so it never threatens your future sales again.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
If you want me to buy "Megagame 2" but don't want me to sell my copy of "Megagame 1" in case it creates competition for your Megagame 2 sales, then offer me a voucher for my copy of Megagame 1 (you only need to match or slightly better the price places like Gamestop would pay me). Said voucher to to be used when purchasing Megagame 2 )or another of your product line). Then when you have my copy of Megagame 1, you can destroy it so it never threatens your future sales again.
This was actually done by Epic, during that period of time before they started assfucking PC gamers for fun and profit. If you bought UT 2003, and wanted UT2004 (which basically included all of the content of UT 2003, in what can only be described as a bargainous adventure into consumer value) you could send them back your 'Play' disc from UT2003 and get a rebate on UT2004. I think it was about 10 bucks, but it was still a nice thing to do!
really? painful? (Score:5, Insightful)
first, I've been playing PC games for over 2 decades.
Quality has dropped drastically. Technology increased which gave the illusion of high quality. Games today are a horrendous value compared to just ten years ago. Content has dropped from an observed average of 25 hours of gameplay to around 6 hours. Half the budget is blown by publishers on marketing. Publishers have also gotten quite complacent about their position in the industry. When you have more than 3 sequels, it's easy to forget about innovation.
Since games are so short these days, people go through them faster. Thus they go to the retailers what sell used games.
Context (Score:4, Insightful)
Just keep in mind, regardless of all the doom and gloom reports, the Games industry is still posting new record profits year on year, so it's obviously not that big a problem.
What they really mean is they want to make even more profit and rather than produce games that are of better quality and/or appeal to wider audiences they want to keep shifting the same old crap but make more from it.
Make no mistake, the whole Spore DRM debacle had nothing to do with piracy and everything to do with preventing second hand sales. The games industry has set it's sights on the second hand market as a way to increase profits without increasing effort, I do not think it will win, but accept consumers to have to listen to whines from the industry and take it from behind on DRM and stuff for a little while yet.